2008 Ranger
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
From: Central, MA
2008 Ranger
I just got back from looking at the new Rangers. Truthfully, I have not been following the newer trucks too much. I’ve been happy with mine since 2003. Man, that dealership like walking into a lion's den! LOL
Anyway, why did they drop the 3.0 Vulcan motor?
I think this was a mistake on their part.
Stopping the Vulcan would be like Chrysler if they dropped the old Slant Six way before it’s time.
Was anyone else disappointed to hear this?
I have a Flex Fuel in my ’99 4X4 and it seems to be pretty rugged. Granted the 3.0 doesn’t exactly pull the front wheels of the ground, but I’ve managed almost 24MPG on the highway and I like having the cast iron block and heads too.
Anyway, why did they drop the 3.0 Vulcan motor?
I think this was a mistake on their part.
Stopping the Vulcan would be like Chrysler if they dropped the old Slant Six way before it’s time.
Was anyone else disappointed to hear this?
I have a Flex Fuel in my ’99 4X4 and it seems to be pretty rugged. Granted the 3.0 doesn’t exactly pull the front wheels of the ground, but I’ve managed almost 24MPG on the highway and I like having the cast iron block and heads too.
Junior User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: A Double-wide
I just got back from looking at the new Rangers. Truthfully, I have not been following the newer trucks too much. I’ve been happy with mine since 2003. Man, that dealership like walking into a lion's den! LOL
Anyway, why did they drop the 3.0 Vulcan motor?
I think this was a mistake on their part.
Stopping the Vulcan would be like Chrysler if they dropped the old Slant Six way before it’s time.
Was anyone else disappointed to hear this?
I have a Flex Fuel in my ’99 4X4 and it seems to be pretty rugged. Granted the 3.0 doesn’t exactly pull the front wheels of the ground, but I’ve managed almost 24MPG on the highway and I like having the cast iron block and heads too.
Anyway, why did they drop the 3.0 Vulcan motor?
I think this was a mistake on their part.
Stopping the Vulcan would be like Chrysler if they dropped the old Slant Six way before it’s time.
Was anyone else disappointed to hear this?
I have a Flex Fuel in my ’99 4X4 and it seems to be pretty rugged. Granted the 3.0 doesn’t exactly pull the front wheels of the ground, but I’ve managed almost 24MPG on the highway and I like having the cast iron block and heads too.
PS you are getting some good mileage with your 3.0, I get 22 mpg at the best, usually average 20 though.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,748
Likes: 16
From: Connecticut
IMO, it's understandable that the venerable vulcan is finally being retired. It's been a great engine and has served Ford extremely well for over 2 decades. But in terms of performance and MPG, it's old technology (just like my 4.0L OHV). Time to move on.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
From: Central, MA
The sales guy said no more 3.0 motors for the Ranger. I asked for a sales brochure and he brought me one from the 2008 model year.
They only had one new Ranger on the lot. The weird part was that it looked like my 1999 Ranger's twin. Same color combo, body sytle and options, just bran spankin new with those 16-inch Y-Spoke wheels and the 4.0 motor.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,748
Likes: 16
From: Connecticut
But let's face it, there simply isn't anything more that Ford can squeeze out of the vulcan. The ultra-important variables of (1) fuel economy and (2) performance, have been maximized.
Newer technologies can and do offer more options. The Ford 3.5L Duratec engine is a good example.
Trending Topics
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
The problem with the 3.0 is it had the same power as the duratec 2.3, "more or less". Now ford has come out with the dratec 2.5 at 170 hp, which is more than the 3.0. With the 3.0 getting about the same mpg as the 4.0, there's no need for it. I don't miss it at all, I would rather have a 4 cylinder than the 3.slow and for a 4x4, it's the 4.0 all the way. The 3.0 was a good dependable engine, but very outdated and sorta useless in my opinion compared to the other modern ranger engine offerings. Even the 2.9 had a more usable power band than the 3.0.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
From: Central, MA
I wonder if the 4.0 would get better mileage than the 3.0 under the same working conditions, like pulling a boat?
If the 4.0 is going to be as reliable and rugged as the 3.0, it's almost a win-win situation.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
Yeah, you'll feel the difference when you mash on the gas. The 4.0 may do a little better on gas pulling your boat as the engine won't have to labor as hard. I believe once you drive a 4.0 powered ranger, you won't miss the 3.0. It's still basically the same dependable old 4.0 they've made since 91, except now it has over head cams, still the same old bottom block. You'll like the 207 hp, but you'll love the 238 pounds of torque, especially when pulling that boat.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 5
From: Almost Heaven
Yeah, you'll feel the difference when you mash on the gas. The 4.0 may do a little better on gas pulling your boat as the engine won't have to labor as hard. I believe once you drive a 4.0 powered ranger, you won't miss the 3.0. It's still basically the same dependable old 4.0 they've made since 91, except now it has over head cams, still the same old bottom block. You'll like the 207 hp, but you'll love the 238 pounds of torque, especially when pulling that boat.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
From: Central, MA
After only owning the 3.0, I'm ignorant of the 4.0 motor's potential.
There might be ways of modifying and tuning the 4.0. It would be fun getting it to make more power and be more efficient.
I just kind of hate seeing the Vulcan removed from the line up. This is just about progression, I guess.